Slashdot Mirror
When Snowden Speaks, Future Lawyers (and Judges) Listen
TheRealHocusLocus writes: We are witness to a historic first: an individual charged with espionage and actively sought by the United States government has been (virtually) invited to speak at Harvard Law School, with applause. [Note: all of the following links go to different parts of a long YouTube video.] HLS Professor Lawrence Lessig conducted the hour-long interview last Monday with a list of questions by himself and his students.
Some interesting segments from the interview include: Snowden's assertion that mass domestic intercept is an "unreasonable seizure" under the 4th Amendment; that it also violates "natural rights" that cannot be voted away even by the majority; a claim that broad surveillance detracts from the ability to monitor specific targets such as the Boston Marathon bombers; him calling out Congress for not holding Clapper accountable for misstatements; and his lament that contractors are exempt from whistleblower protection though they do swear an oath to defend the Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic.
These points have been brought up before. But what may be most interesting to these students is Snowden's suggestion that a defendant under the Espionage Act should be permitted to present an argument before a jury that the act was committed "in the public interest." Could this help ensure a fair trial for whistleblowers whose testimony reveals Constitutional violation?
Some interesting segments from the interview include: Snowden's assertion that mass domestic intercept is an "unreasonable seizure" under the 4th Amendment; that it also violates "natural rights" that cannot be voted away even by the majority; a claim that broad surveillance detracts from the ability to monitor specific targets such as the Boston Marathon bombers; him calling out Congress for not holding Clapper accountable for misstatements; and his lament that contractors are exempt from whistleblower protection though they do swear an oath to defend the Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic.
These points have been brought up before. But what may be most interesting to these students is Snowden's suggestion that a defendant under the Espionage Act should be permitted to present an argument before a jury that the act was committed "in the public interest." Could this help ensure a fair trial for whistleblowers whose testimony reveals Constitutional violation?
They wouldn't be committing felonies as that would require a violation of law rather than violations of constitutional restrictions against government. The law, constitutional or not, allows the NSA to do what they are doing else a lowly court could shut it all down by a simple low level prosecutor bringing charges to a grand jury. Once it is in the grand jury's hands, the government cannot order the prosecutor to stop anything and it is almost impossible for the administration to stop as the judicial branch is separate. Congress would have to pass a law barring the judicial branch from taking the case up or proceeding with the case which would only work if a court didn't find constitutional issues with the case before it was passed.
Do not construe this comment to be in support of the NSA, just reality as it is presented to us today.
As I see it, every agency that has a hand in the domestic surveillance programs detailed by Snowden is in violation of Federal law, and yes these are felonies. From Title 18 of the United States Code:
241. If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
242. Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
First, a court cannot exactly enforce any decision ruling or anything else. That gets passed on to the executive so I'm not going to argue the futility you expressed as it is more than appropriate. We saw this first hand several times in history- one of which was when FDR's new deal legislation was declared unconstitutional and FDR basically said "so what" forcing the court to expand the interstate commerce clause into the monster it is today in order to avoid a constitutional meltdown.
But even if a government official can lie in court, it doesn't mean they will win when it is known they are lieing. As for a pardon, yes, a president can pardon anyone for any violation of any law. It would stop the court proceeding but a pardon implies guilt with no consequences or at minimum the equivalence of no contest without the ability to punish the person. That provides sort of a quirky area where the court can still rule on the case but not impose punishment. Or in other words, a pardon on a person would not prevent the court from saying the program must stop because it is unconstitutional. The pardon does not remove a court order declaring the program unconstitutional and ordering it shut down as matter of fact within the case. At that point, it will be up to the electorate if they want to keep someone in office who violates the law and constitution or not. I suspect that the answer will be no and they will demand congress impeach the president or vote overwhelmingly for any person of another party who pledges to end the program.
As for showing cause, you are correct, and if a law existed that did not allow the NSA to collect the crap that we all know violates the constitution, cause could be shown. In fact, cause was shown before and a case was advancing which is why congress passed a law allowing the collection and implemented the retroactive immunity for the telecoms. I think it was Hepting v. AT&T another seems to be advancing on what was learned from that case and NSA whistle blowers but is directed at the government itself which doesn't have the immunity.
Quote :
The US has never tried Assange, and he isn't wanted by the US.
You might want to reconsider that claim :
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/12/13/wikileaks.investigation/
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/may/11/us-opens-wikileaks-grand-jury-hearing
http://m.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/revealed-us-plans-to-charge-assange-20120228-1u14o.html
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/wikileaks-stratfor-emails-a-secret-indictment-against-assange-20120228
To shut you down : All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Mass violation of the constitution, mass intrusion of privacy of innocent people throughout the world, destruction of trust, violating foreign countries sovereignty and bullying then to violate their own laws and/or change to please the U.S. *is* evil.
Let me tell you. For many, many people outside the U.S., the NSA is more evil than IS and Al-quaida combined. And I wouldn't be surprised if a large number of US citizens wouldn't feel the same.
IS are insane asshole on a regional level. The NSA is an insane psychopathic asshole on a global level.
Do you work in Fort Meade?
Great man therefore traitor to status quo != traitor to status quo therefore great man.
null